She Really is an Asshole

More on Guns:

Jason Zengerle says that the idea of betting on an outcome like the discharge of a gun at another human being is "offensive". Well, I'm betting on good behavior, which doesn't seem that offensive to me. Zengerle et. al. are the ones claiming that people openly carrying guns have a significant probability of hauling off and shooting someone for no good reason.

And you're trying to coerce your opponents into betting for gun violence, which is to say you want to be able to say libs want someone to be shot for propaganda purposes, because you think everyone is as dead inside as you are, Megan. I wanted to be wrong about Iraq. I wanted to be wrong that Bush was torturing people. Personally, when I predict bad things, I want to be wrong. Sadly, when predicting extreme, unAmerican, behavior from the right, I'm rarely wrong, and the experts, like Dave Neiwert and the SPLC, I listen to get it right even more often.

I find that rather offensive, given how little the people saying this sort of thing actually know about the protesters. They may, to be sure, be gun-mad lunatics dying for a chance to shoot some random stranger. Me, I'd expect the gun-mad lunatics are probably carrying their gun concealed somewhere on their person, the better to use it without being stopped. But I don't know. The point is, neither does the other side. All these confident predictions of impending violence do not, to me, seem to rest on much more than the belief that people who openly carry weapons near a rally must be gun-crazed lunatics who want to intimidate Democrats with threats of violence. This is somewhat circular to say the least.

No one is making confident predictions of violence. We're saying we fear that it has become far more likely. This is something even Megan could understand, if she had the least bit of intellectual honesty. The distinction between openly carrying and concealed is disingenuous, just to begin with. Bringing a gun to a peaceful public forum is bringing a gun to a peaceful public forum. If you think it's a good idea, I don't trust you. Even Megan can't pretend it's a positive development.

Zengerle also conflates this with presidential assassination, as have many other commentators. As far as I know, only one chap has been near the president, and he was a publicity stunt. The others seem to be at less august meetings. If a gun nut wants to assassinate a minor Senator or Congressman, he doesn't need to carry a rifle to a protest somewhere. They're not that well protected. And also, not that frequently attacked.

Great, now she's advising nuts on who to target. And btw, Megan, YOU WERE THE FUCKING ONE TO CONFLATE THIS WITH ASSASSINATIONS. But let's move on, there's plenty of offensive stupidity still to cover.

Do I think guns should be near Obama? I think that is for the Secret Service to say, and I would support whatever decision they rendered. But we don't know where this guy was, or if he ever even saw Obama.

What a load of shit. Is it good symbolism to bring guns to outside of events where a black President who's already been the target of admittedly inept assassination plots is speaking? She dunno, guhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

But if I had to guess, I would say that I do not think that anyone openly carrying a weapon is likely to pose much danger to the president. Why? Because the Secret Service knows he is there. You can bet they have at least one guy watching the fellow with the AR-15, and that if he had taken it off his back and begun to raise it to firing position, he would have been immediately taken out. The people who I worry about are the ones who carry concealed weapons, the better to get a shot off before the Secret Service notices. Or the ones who have found a good hiding place with a sightline to the president. Etc.

Apparently Megan literally has no idea what the Secret Service does, such as predetermine locations with sight lines and place agents there, or use metal detectors to screen the people coming in to see the President. I'm not one for a slippery slope, but is it really so hard to foresee a situation where a gun nut is asked to turn in his weapon before going in to see the President and the gun nut responds by seeing gubbermint agents after his gunz and starts shooting?

It is entirely possible that some nut will shoot someone at a protest, or try to shoot the president (indeed, I expect at least one assassination attempt, as that seems to be par for the course). But I have no reason to think that the fellows brazenly carrying pistols on their hip will be among those nuts. Nor, I think, do the people hysterically accusing them of some pretty evil intentions.

Besides the stupidity of accepting assassination attempts as par for the course, which is to say she knows she's wrong and is splitting hairs, this is flat out empirically false. The gun nut outside Obama's event specifically quoted the (shortened) Jefferson quote favored by militiamen, the quote which, if memory serves, McVeigh had on a tshirt he was wearing when arrested. That, my dear, is a concrete reason to be disturbed by the potential intent of that particular nut. But Megan doesn't know this, because she can't be arsed to do anything but worry about whether that particular nut was black, which would make the wholllllllllle issue moot, for no particular reason. I'm not kidding, she specifically doesn't know about this connection.

To be clear, as I said in my previous post, I think carrying a gun to a protest is at best stupid. Whether or not they intend to provoke hysterical fear among a substantial portion of the population, they clearly are doing so, and that is not how you make your best case for the second amendment. It's also not very nice, even if you didn't mean it. So I think they should stop. Meanwhile, I think that the left should also stop claiming, on little evidence, that they are crazed militia members. Doesn't that seem like a reasonable compromise?

No, because it's not a compromise, it's you seeking to get everything you want. Spoiled brats think that indulging them is a public service.
Sure, it's nice she said they should stop, but it's obvious bullshit that she only said to cover her own ass. She's spent at least three posts now defending the good natures of these folk bringing LOADED FIREARMS to peaceful public events, but she's gently asking them to cut it out, almost like she's scared to get directly in their faces.
They are armed, after all. You don't wanna provoke them too much, do you?